That should have been big news, and perhaps during the presidency of George W. Bush, it would have been. But since 2008, when former NASA scientist James Hanson put another number on the map when he said, "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted ...CO2 will need to be reduced to as most 350 ppm."

That magic number is now just a shimmering mirage in the rear-view mirror.

The imbalance in scientific opinion (it's not quite the right word, but will suffice here) on climate change is on the order of 47-to-1 or more. According to NASA, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." That's among climatologists who have published in peer-reviewed journalists -- true experts, in other words, as opposed to say, a random biologist or the author of a white paper for a biased think tank.

Advertisement

Pointing out such things to climate-change "skeptics" is considered bad taste these days. But as former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, a Republican jettisoned by voters for daring to accept the scientific consensus, put it, "Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, 'No, this other is the way to go.' (If you) go with the two, you're taking a big risk with those kids."

With the strong likelihood that global warming is a reality -- all the wags who tut-tut every time it snows in May would do well to look up the difference between climate and weather -- climate-change skepticism and shrugging off action are also "a big risk with those kids." Which kids? Yours, mine, theirs. Pretty much every human being who will have to live on this planet after (even before) we're moldering in our graves.

It is genuinely astonishing that many, likely most, people who "reject" the reality of anthropogenic climate change -- those who are sticking with the 2-3 percent of scientific skeptics, no matter what -- would describe themselves as strong supporters of "family values" and "personal responsibility."

What's with that?

First, there is blame enough to go around. We are all the bogeyman here (although interestingly, the poorer you are, the smaller your carbon footprint is likely to be -- blessed are the poor?). The well-known climate activist Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and author of the seminal tome on the subject, "The End of Nature," has been trying to shame energy companies into reducing carbon emissions. The energy companies may be the pushers, but we're the junkies and we want more, more, more. Every one of us -- me included -- who chooses to drive and crank up the air conditioner and heating is guilty.

Second, conservatives hate the whole subject because it has unmistakable whiff of more government control. After all, who's going to enforce reductions in CO2 emissions? Not 350.org, that's for sure.

Many conservatives also despise collective action of any kind. These are the same people, generally, who mock the idea that "it takes a village" to do anything. Rugged individualism has made the world great, they say. Free-market capitalism is the unchallenged king of economic systems.

Unfortunately, when it comes to some as enormous as climate (or moderating pure capitalism's more cruel results) collective effort and enforcement are absolutely necessary. Sure, we can all buy curly light bulbs, drive a tad less, maybe turn the AC down to just 72 on a hot day, but people correctly perceive -- as does McKibben -- that this isn't going to cut it.

Yet the most promising tool for reducing emissions, a carbon tax recommended even by many conservative economists, isn't even under consideration because the Grover Norquists of the world have convinced so many Americans that taxes are bad, period. The thing is, taxing "bad things" like cigarettes and booze used to be a time-honored -- even conservative -- way to change negative behaviors, to the benefit of all (ooohhhh, social engineering!) But that tool was yanked out of the box and Congress is as likely to pass a carbon tax as it is to reduce its vacation days.

In other words, "rejecting" climate change is anything but a conservative position. It violates so many core conservative principles: Be frugal; plan for the future; sacrifice for your children and grandchildren; conserve what you have.

When it comes to actual behavior, I'm not so sure that liberals or progressives who tout the consensus on climate change are acting much differently than skeptical conservatives. But then, why should they? There's nothing to even discourage the other guy's going to drive his Hummer to work, so why should I take the bus?

In short, individual effort is not enough when it comes to climate change. This monumentally threatening problem requires legislation, taxes and government enforcement. It can be done in "conservative" ways, such as a cap-and-trade system, but taxing the negative impacts of carbon emissions is frankly more effective.

Or we can do nothing. We can embrace our role as a bunch of frogs in a slowly (or not so) simmering pot who aren't smart enough to hop out.

Clubs keeping eye on RPI rankingsIn the age of RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) determining playoff seeding in Colorado prep sports, playing a championship schedule has become more important than ever for any team expecting to compete for a state title. Full Story

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story